UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`GESTURE TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS LLC
`Patent Owner
`_________________
`
`Inter Partes Review Case No. IPR2021-00923
`U.S. Patent No. 8,194,924
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. BENJAMIN B. BEDERSON
`
`IPR2021-00923
`Apple EX1003 Page 1
`
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`GESTURE TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS LLC
`Patent Owner
`_________________
`
`Inter Partes Review Case No. IPR2021-00923
`U.S. Patent No. 8,194,924
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. BENJAMIN B. BEDERSON
`
`IPR2021-00923
`Apple EX1003 Page 1
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00923
`U.S. Patent No. 8,194,924
`
`I, Benjamin B. Bederson, hereby declare the following:
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`1. My name is Benjamin B. Bederson, Ph.D and I am over 21 years of age
`
`and otherwise competent to make this Declaration. I make this Declaration based on
`
`facts and matters within my own knowledge and on information provided to me by
`
`others.
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained by counsel for Petitioner as a technical expert in the
`
`above-captioned case. Specifically, I have been asked to render certain opinions in
`
`regard to the IPR petition with respect to U.S. Patent No. 8,194,924 (the “’924
`
`Patent”). I understand that the Challenged Claims are claims 1-14. My opinions are
`
`limited to those Challenged Claims.
`
`3. My compensation in this matter is not based on the substance of my
`
`opinions or the outcome of this matter. I have no financial interest in Petitioner. I am
`
`being compensated at an hourly rate of $600 for my analysis and testimony in this
`
`case.
`
`4.
`
`In writing this declaration, I have considered my own knowledge and
`
`experience, including my work experience in the field of electrical and computer
`
`engineering; my experience in teaching in this area; and my experience working with
`
`others involved in this field, including in both the design and analysis of multimedia-
`
`
`
`2
`
`IPR2021-00923
`Apple EX1003 Page 2
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00923
`U.S. Patent No. 8,194,924
`focused communication systems and subsystems. In reaching my opinions in this
`
`matter, I have also reviewed the following references and materials:
`
`• The ’924 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`• The ’924 Patent File History (Ex. 1002)
`• Canadian Published Patent Application CA2,237,939A1 (“Mann”) (Ex.
`1004)
`• U.S. Patent No. 6,144,366 (“Numazaki”) (Ex. 1005)
`• U.S. Patent No. 6,539,100 (“Amir”) (Ex. 1006)
`• U.S. Patent No. 5,666,157 (“Aviv”) (Ex. 1007)
`• “CCD and CMOS Imaging Array Technologies,” by Stuart Taylor
`(“Taylor”) (Ex. 1014)
`• “RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications,” Network Working
`Group, RFC 1889 (Jan 1996) (Ex. 1015)
`• Microsoft Computer Dictionary, 5th Ed. (2002) (Ex. 1016)
`• Electrical Engineering Dictionary (2000) (Ex. 1017)
`• Any additional background materials cited below
`A. Educational Background
`5.
`I received a Bachelor of Science degree in Computer Science with a
`
`minor in Electrical Engineering from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (“RPI”) in
`
`1986. I received a Master of Science degree and a Ph.D. in Computer Science from
`
`New York University (“NYU”) in 1989 and 1992, respectively.
`
`B.
`6.
`
`Professional Experience
`Since 1998, I have been a Professor of Computer Science at the
`
`University of Maryland (“UMD”), where I have joint appointments at the Institute
`
`for Advanced Computer Studies and the College of Information Studies (Maryland’s
`
`“iSchool”), and am currently Professor Emeritus. I was also Associate Provost of
`
`Learning Initiatives and Executive Director of the Teaching and Learning
`
`
`
`3
`
`IPR2021-00923
`Apple EX1003 Page 3
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00923
`U.S. Patent No. 8,194,924
`Transformation Center from 2014 to 2018. I am a member and previous director of
`
`the Human-Computer Interaction Lab (“HCIL”), the oldest and one of the best
`
`known Human-Computer Interaction research groups in the country. I was also co-
`
`founder and Chief Scientist of Zumobi, Inc. from 2006 to 2014, a Seattle-based
`
`startup that is a publisher of content applications and advertising platforms for
`
`smartphones. I am also co-founder and co-director of the International Children’s
`
`Digital Library (“ICDL”), a web site launched in 2002 that provides the world’s
`
`largest collection of freely available online children’s books from around the world
`
`with an interface aimed to make it easy for children and adults to search and read
`
`children’s books online. I am also co-founder and prior Chief Technology Officer of
`
`Hazel Analytics, a data analytics company whose product sends alerts in warranted
`
`circumstances. In addition, I have for more than 25 years consulted for numerous
`
`companies in the area of user interfaces, including Logitech, Microsoft, the Palo Alto
`
`Research Center, Sony, Lockheed Martin, Hillcrest Labs, and NASA Goddard Space
`
`Flight Center.
`
`7.
`
`For more than 30 years, I have studied, designed, and worked in the
`
`field of computer science and human-computer interaction. My experience includes
`
`30 years of teaching and research, with research interests in human-computer
`
`interaction and the software and technology underlying today’s interactive
`
`computing systems. This includes the design and implementation of image sensing
`
`
`
`4
`
`IPR2021-00923
`Apple EX1003 Page 4
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00923
`U.S. Patent No. 8,194,924
`and image processing systems as well as software applications on mobile devices,
`
`including smart phones and PDAs, such as my work on DateLens, LaunchTile, and
`
`StoryKit described below. My consulting included helping companies apply my
`
`work on “zoomable user interfaces” to their consumer-facing audio/video access
`
`software.
`
`8.
`
`In 1992, I completed my Ph.D. dissertation at New York University
`
`titled “A Miniature Space-Variant Active Vision System: Cortex-I” (Ex. 1012)1 in
`
`which I worked with both CMOS and CCD image sensors and wrote image
`
`processing software using those sensors. As depicted in the VLSI circuit layout
`
`image below, I designed a custom CMOS image sensor with a radial pixel layout.
`
`Figure 2.1 from my dissertation show the result of images taken with a camera I built
`
`using that image sensor. I then built a custom CCD-based camera by manufacturing
`
`a lens that I attached directly to a commercially available CCD sensor that is shown
`
`in Figure 2.2.
`
`
`1 Ex. 1012 is a pre-publication version of my thesis, which does not include the
`final chapter.
`
`
`
`5
`
`IPR2021-00923
`Apple EX1003 Page 5
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00923
`U.S. Patent No. 8,194,924
`US. Patent No. 8,194,924
`
`IPR2021-00923
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`IPR2021-00923
`
`Apple EX1003 Page 6
`
`IPR2021-00923
`Apple EX1003 Page 6
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00923
`U.S. Patent No. 8,194,924
`
`
`
`9.
`
`In 1995, I built an “audio augmented reality” system2 that identified
`
`which piece of art a person was standing in front of. This worked by installing
`
`infrared transmitters in the ceiling above each piece of art which was identified by
`
`an infrared receiver controlled by a microcontroller. As depicted in Figure 1 below,
`
`
`2 Benjamin B. Bederson. 1995. Audio augmented reality: a prototype automated tour
`guide. In Conference Companion on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI
`'95), I. Katz, R. Mack, and L. Marks (Eds.). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 210-211.
`DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/223355.223526 (Ex. 1013).
`
`
`
`7
`
`IPR2021-00923
`Apple EX1003 Page 7
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00923
`U.S. Patent No. 8,194,924
`a person wearing the receiver walked around, the microcontroller they were carrying
`
`would identify the code from the transmitter they were standing under.
`
`
`
`10. At UMD, my research is in the area of Human-Computer Interaction
`
`(“HCI”), a field that relates to the development and understanding of computing
`
`systems to serve users’ needs. Researchers in this field are focused on making
`
`universally usable, useful, efficient and appealing systems to support people in their
`
`wide range of activities. My approach is to balance the development of innovative
`
`technology that serves people’s practical needs. Example systems following this
`
`approach that I have built include PhotoMesa (software for end users to browse
`
`personal photos), DateLens (2002 software for end users to use their mobile devices
`
`to efficiently access their calendar information), LaunchTile (2005 “home screen”
`
`software for mobile devices to allow users to navigate apps in a zoomable
`
`
`
`8
`
`IPR2021-00923
`Apple EX1003 Page 8
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00923
`U.S. Patent No. 8,194,924
`environment), SpaceTree (2001 software for end users to efficiently browse very
`
`large hierarchies), ICDL (as described above), and StoryKit (a 2009 iPhone app for
`
`children to create stories).
`
`11. LaunchTile led to my creation of Zumobi in 2006, where I was
`
`responsible for investigating new software platforms and developing new user
`
`interface designs that provide efficient and engaging interfaces to permit end users
`
`to access a wide range of content on mobile platforms (including the iPhone and
`
`Android-based devices). For example, I designed and implemented software called
`
`“Ziibii,” a “river” of news for iPhone, software called “ZoomCanvas,” a zoomable
`
`user interface for several iPhone apps, and iPhone apps including “Inside Xbox” for
`
`Microsoft and Snow Report for REI. At the International Children’s Digital Library
`
`(ICDL), I have since 2002 been the technical director responsible for the design and
`
`implementation of
`
`the web site, www.childrenslibrary.org
`
`(originally at
`
`www.icdlbooks.org). In particular, I have been closely involved in designing the
`
`user interfaces as well as the software architecture for the web site since its inception
`
`in 2002.
`
`12. Beginning in the mid-1990s, I have been responsible for the design and
`
`implementation of numerous other web sites in addition to the ICDL. For example,
`
`I designed and built my own professional web site when I was an Assistant Professor
`
`of Computer Science at the University of New Mexico in 1995 and have continued
`
`
`
`9
`
`IPR2021-00923
`Apple EX1003 Page 9
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00923
`U.S. Patent No. 8,194,924
`to design, write the code for, and update both that site (which I moved to the
`
`University of Maryland in 1998, currently at http://www.cs.umd.edu/~bederson/) as
`
`well
`
`as
`
`numerous
`
`project
`
`web
`
`sites,
`
`such
`
`as
`
`Pad++,
`
`http://www.cs.umd.edu/hcil/pad++/. I received the Janet Fabri Memorial Award for
`
`Outstanding Doctoral Dissertation for my Ph.D. work in robotics and computer
`
`vision. I have combined my hardware and software skills throughout my career in
`
`Human-Computer Interaction research, building various interactive electrical and
`
`mechanical systems that couple with software to provide an innovative user
`
`experience.
`
`13. My work has been published extensively in more than 160 technical
`
`publications, and I have given about 100 invited talks, including 9 keynote lectures.
`
`I have won a number of awards including the Brian Shackel Award for “outstanding
`
`contribution with international impact in the field of HCI” in 2007, and the Social
`
`Impact Award in 2010 from Association for Computing Machinery’s (“ACM”)
`
`Special Interest Group on Computer Human Interaction (“SIGCHI”). ACM is the
`
`primary international professional community of computer scientists, and SIGCHI
`
`is the primary international professional HCI community. I have been honored by
`
`both professional organizations. I am an “ACM Distinguished Scientist,” which
`
`“recognizes those ACM members with at least 15 years of professional experience
`
`and 5 years of continuous Professional Membership who have achieved significant
`
`
`
`10
`
`IPR2021-00923
`Apple EX1003 Page 10
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00923
`U.S. Patent No. 8,194,924
`accomplishments or have made a significant impact on the computing field.” I am a
`
`member of the “CHI Academy,” which is described as follows: “The CHI Academy
`
`is an honorary group of individuals who have made substantial contributions to the
`
`field of human-computer interaction. These are the principal leaders of the field,
`
`whose efforts have shaped the disciplines and/or industry, and led the research
`
`and/or innovation in human-computer interaction.” The criteria for election to the
`
`CHI Academy are: cumulative contributions to the field; impact on the field through
`
`development of new research directions and/or innovations; and (3) influence on the
`
`work of others.
`
`14.
`
`I have appeared on radio shows numerous times to discuss issues
`
`relating to user interface design and people’s use and frustration with common
`
`technologies, web sites, and mobile devices. My work has been discussed and I have
`
`been quoted by mainstream media around the world over 120 times, including by
`
`the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, Newsweek, the
`
`Seattle Post-Intelligencer, the Independent, Le Monde, NPR’s All Things
`
`Considered, New Scientist Magazine, and MIT’s Technology Review.
`
`15.
`
`I have designed, programmed, and publicly deployed dozens of user-
`
`facing software products that have cumulatively been used by millions of users. My
`
`work is cited in patents by several major companies, including Amazon, Apple,
`
`Facebook, Google, and Microsoft. I am the co-inventor of 12 U.S. patents and 18
`
`
`
`11
`
`IPR2021-00923
`Apple EX1003 Page 11
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00923
`U.S. Patent No. 8,194,924
`U.S. patent applications. The patents are generally directed
`to user
`
`interfaces/experience with some directed to mobile devices, including U.S. Patent
`
`No. 9,778,810 (issued 2017), entitled “Techniques to modify content and view
`
`content on mobile devices.”
`
`16. My curriculum vitae, which includes a more detailed summary of my
`
`background, experience, and publications, is attached as Appendix A.
`
`II. LEGAL FRAMEWORK
`
`A. Obviousness
`17.
`I am a technical expert and do not offer any legal opinions. However,
`
`counsel has informed me as to certain legal principles regarding patentability and
`
`related matters under United States patent law, which I have applied in performing
`
`my analysis and arriving at my technical opinions in this matter.
`
`18.
`
`I have been informed that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”)
`
`now applies the claim construction standard applied by Article III courts (i.e., the
`
`Phillips standard) regardless of whether a patent has expired. I have been informed
`
`that under the Phillips standard, claim terms are to be given the meaning they would
`
`have to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, taking
`
`into consideration the patent, its file history, and, secondarily, any applicable
`
`extrinsic evidence (e.g., dictionary definitions). In my analyses below, I have applied
`
`the plain and ordinary meaning pursuant to the Phillips standard.
`
`
`
`12
`
`IPR2021-00923
`Apple EX1003 Page 12
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00923
`U.S. Patent No. 8,194,924
`I have also been informed that a person cannot obtain a patent on an
`
`19.
`
`invention if the differences between the invention and the prior art are such that the
`
`subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was
`
`made to a person having ordinary skill in the art. I have been informed that a
`
`conclusion of obviousness may be founded upon more than a single item of prior art.
`
`I have been further informed that obviousness is determined by evaluating the
`
`following factors: (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) the differences
`
`between the prior art and the claim at issue, (3) the level of ordinary skill in the
`
`pertinent art, and (4) secondary considerations of non-obviousness. In addition, the
`
`obviousness inquiry should not be done in hindsight. Instead, the obviousness
`
`inquiry should be done through the eyes of a person having ordinary skill in the
`
`relevant art at the time the patent was filed.
`
`20.
`
`In considering whether certain prior art renders a particular patent claim
`
`obvious, counsel has informed me that I can consider the scope and content of the
`
`prior art, including the fact that one of skill in the art would regularly look to the
`
`disclosures in patents, trade publications, journal articles, industry standards,
`
`product literature and documentation, texts describing competitive technologies,
`
`requests for comment published by standard setting organizations, and materials
`
`from industry conferences, as examples. I have been informed that for a prior art
`
`reference to be proper for use in an obviousness analysis, the reference must be
`
`
`
`13
`
`IPR2021-00923
`Apple EX1003 Page 13
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00923
`U.S. Patent No. 8,194,924
`“analogous art” to the claimed invention. I have been informed that a reference is
`
`analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of
`
`endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2)
`
`the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it
`
`is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). In order for a reference
`
`to be “reasonably pertinent” to the problem, it must logically have commended itself
`
`to an inventor’s attention in considering his problem. In determining whether a
`
`reference is reasonably pertinent, one should consider the problem faced by the
`
`inventor, as reflected either explicitly or implicitly, in the specification. I believe that
`
`all of the references that my opinions in this IPR are based upon are well within the
`
`range of references a person having ordinary skill in the art would consult to address
`
`the type of problems described in the Challenged Claims.
`
`21.
`
`I have been informed that, in order to establish that a claimed invention
`
`was obvious based on a combination of prior art elements, a clear articulation of the
`
`reason(s) why a claimed invention would have been obvious must be provided.
`
`Specifically, I am informed that, under the U.S. Supreme Court’s KSR decision, a
`
`combination of multiple items of prior art renders a patent claim obvious when there
`
`was an apparent reason for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention,
`
`to combine the prior art, which can include, but is not limited to, any of the following
`
`rationales: (A) combining prior art methods according to known methods to yield
`
`
`
`14
`
`IPR2021-00923
`Apple EX1003 Page 14
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00923
`U.S. Patent No. 8,194,924
`predictable results; (B) substituting one known element for another to obtain
`
`predictable results; (C) using a known technique to improve a similar device in the
`
`same way; (D) applying a known technique to a known device ready for
`
`improvement to yield predictable results; (E) trying a finite number of identified,
`
`predictable potential solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success; (F)
`
`identifying that known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for
`
`use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other
`
`market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; or
`
`(G) identifying an explicit teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that
`
`would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine
`
`the prior art references to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`22.
`
`I am informed that the existence of an explicit teaching, suggestion, or
`
`motivation to combine known elements of the prior art is a sufficient, but not a
`
`necessary, condition to a finding of obviousness. This so-called “teaching
`
`suggestion-motivation” test is not the exclusive test and is not to be applied rigidly
`
`in an obviousness analysis. In determining whether the subject matter of a patent
`
`claim is obvious, neither the particular motivation nor the avowed purpose of the
`
`patentee controls. Instead, the important consideration is the objective reach of the
`
`claim. In other words, if the claim extends to what is obvious, then the claim is
`
`invalid. I am further informed that the obviousness analysis often necessitates
`
`
`
`15
`
`IPR2021-00923
`Apple EX1003 Page 15
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00923
`U.S. Patent No. 8,194,924
`consideration of the interrelated teachings of multiple patents, the effects of demands
`
`known to the technological community or present in the marketplace, and the
`
`background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art. All of
`
`these issues may be considered to determine whether there was an apparent reason
`
`to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent.
`
`23.
`
`I also am informed that in conducting an obviousness analysis, a precise
`
`teaching directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim need not be
`
`sought out because it is appropriate to take account of the inferences and creative
`
`steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ. The prior art considered
`
`can be directed to any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of
`
`invention and can provide a reason for combining the elements of the prior art in the
`
`manner claimed. In other words, the prior art need not be directed towards solving
`
`the same specific problem as the problem addressed by the patent. Further, the
`
`individual prior art references themselves need not all be directed towards solving
`
`the same problem. I am informed that, under the KSR obviousness standard, common
`
`sense is important and should be considered. Common sense teaches that familiar
`
`items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes.
`
`24.
`
`I also am informed that the fact that a particular combination of prior art
`
`elements was “obvious to try” may indicate that the combination was obvious even
`
`if no one attempted the combination. If the combination was obvious to try
`
`
`
`16
`
`IPR2021-00923
`Apple EX1003 Page 16
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00923
`U.S. Patent No. 8,194,924
`(regardless of whether it was actually tried) or leads to anticipated success, then it is
`
`likely the result of ordinary skill and common sense rather than innovation. I am
`
`further informed that in many fields it may be that there is little discussion of obvious
`
`techniques or combinations, and it often may be the case that market demand, rather
`
`than scientific literature or knowledge, will drive the design of an invention. I am
`
`informed that an invention that is a combination of prior art must do more than yield
`
`predictable results to be non-obvious.
`
`25.
`
`I am informed that for a patent claim to be obvious, the claim must be
`
`obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. I am
`
`informed that the factors to consider in determining the level of ordinary skill in the
`
`art include (1) the educational level and experience of people working in the field at
`
`the time the invention was made, (2) the types of problems faced in the art and the
`
`solutions found to those problems, and (3) the sophistication of the technology in the
`
`field.
`
`26.
`
`I am informed that it is improper to combine references where the
`
`references teach away from their combination. I am informed that a reference may
`
`be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art, upon reading
`
`the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference,
`
`or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the patent
`
`applicant. In general, a reference will teach away if it suggests that the line of
`
`
`
`17
`
`IPR2021-00923
`Apple EX1003 Page 17
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00923
`U.S. Patent No. 8,194,924
`development flowing from the reference’s disclosure is unlikely to be productive of
`
`the result sought by the patentee. I am informed that a reference teaches away, for
`
`example, if (1) the combination would produce a seemingly inoperative device, or
`
`(2) the references leave the impression that the product would not have the property
`
`sought by the patentee. I also am informed, however, that a reference does not teach
`
`away if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does
`
`not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage investigation into the invention
`
`claimed.
`
`27.
`
`I am informed that even if a prima facie case of obviousness is
`
`established, the final determination of obviousness must also consider “secondary
`
`considerations” if presented. In most instances, the patentee raises these secondary
`
`considerations of non-obviousness. In that context, the patentee argues an invention
`
`would not have been obvious in view of these considerations, which include: (a)
`
`commercial success of a product due to the merits of the claimed invention; (b) a
`
`long-felt, but unsatisfied need for the invention; (c) failure of others to find the
`
`solution provided by the claimed invention; (d) deliberate copying of the invention
`
`by others; (e) unexpected results achieved by the invention; (f) praise of the
`
`invention by others skilled in the art; (g) lack of independent simultaneous invention
`
`within a comparatively short space of time; (h) teaching away from the invention in
`
`the prior art.
`
`
`
`18
`
`IPR2021-00923
`Apple EX1003 Page 18
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00923
`U.S. Patent No. 8,194,924
`I am further informed that secondary considerations evidence is only
`
`28.
`
`relevant if the offering party establishes a connection, or nexus, between the
`
`evidence and the claimed invention. The nexus cannot be based on prior art features.
`
`The establishment of a nexus is a question of fact. While I understand that the Patent
`
`Owner here has not offered any secondary considerations at this time, I will
`
`supplement my opinions in the event that the Patent Owner raises secondary
`
`considerations during the course of this proceeding.
`
`III. OPINION
`
`A. Level of a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`29.
`
`I was asked to provide my opinion as to the level of skill of a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the art (“PHOSITA”) of the ’924 Patent at the time of the
`
`claimed invention, which counsel has told me to assume is July 8, 1999. In
`
`determining the characteristics of a hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art of
`
`the ’924 Patent, I considered several factors, including the type of problems
`
`encountered in the art, the solutions to those problems, the rapidity with which
`
`innovations are made in the field, the sophistication of the technology, and the
`
`education level of active workers in the field. I also placed myself back in the time
`
`frame of the claimed invention and considered the colleagues with whom I had
`
`worked at that time.
`
`
`
`19
`
`IPR2021-00923
`Apple EX1003 Page 19
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00923
`U.S. Patent No. 8,194,924
`In my opinion, a PHOSITA at the time of the claimed invention of the
`
`30.
`
`’924 Patent would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or
`
`equivalent with at least one year of experience in the field of human computer
`
`interaction. Additional education or experience might substitute for the above
`
`requirements. Such a PHOSITA would have been capable of understanding the ’924
`
`Patent and the prior art references discussed herein.
`
`31. Based on my education, training, and professional experience in the field
`
`of the claimed invention, I am familiar with the level and abilities of a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention. Additionally, I met at
`
`least these minimum qualifications to be a person having ordinary skill in the art as
`
`of the time of the claimed invention of the ’924 Patent.
`
`B. Description of the Alleged Invention of the ’924 Patent
`
`32. The ’924 Patent describes computer devices that “optically sens[e]
`
`human input” using one or more cameras, contemplating applications in a “variety
`
`of fields such as computing, gaming, medicine, and education.” ’924 Patent at 2:7–
`
`23. A number of scenarios are described, including multiple cameras mounted in a
`
`fixed display as depicted in Fig. 1A below and a single camera mounted in a
`
`handheld device as depicted in Fig. 8B below:
`
`
`
`20
`
`IPR2021-00923
`Apple EX1003 Page 20
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00923
`U.S. Patent No. 8,194,924
`
`Id. at Fig. 1A, 3:19-56 (describing cameras 100, 101, and 144).
`
`
`
`
`
`Id. at Fig. 8B, 13:1-10 (describing camera 850).
`
`33. The Challenged Claims each require a handheld device containing two
`
`separate cameras that face in different directions such that they have distinct fields
`
`of view. Id. at Claim 1 (claiming a “handheld device comprising . . . a first camera
`
`[and] a second camera . . . wherein the first and second cameras include non-
`
`overlapping fields of view”). During prosecution, the claims were rejected under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1 for failing to satisfy the written description requirement. The
`
`Examiner noted that the specification failed to describe a handheld device with two
`
`
`
`21
`
`IPR2021-00923
`Apple EX1003 Page 21
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00923
`U.S. Patent No. 8,194,924
`cameras. ’924 File History at 109. In response, the applicant amended the
`
`specification, adding Fig. 18 (reproduced below) and its corresponding disclosure:
`
`
`
`'924 Patent at Figure 18, 25:40-26:51 (describing the same); ’924 File History at
`
`122-129 (amending specification to add Fig. 18 and corresponding disclosure).
`
`34. As illustrated, a handheld computer 1901 with central processing unit
`
`(CPU) houses a camera 1902 that can be paired in stereo with another camera 1910
`
`(on handheld unit), either of which may rotate about axis 1905 to view a user or
`
`aspect of that user like finger 1906. ’924 Patent at 25:40-43. When aimed at the user,
`
`the camera(s) can be used to obtain images and video images of a user’s fingers,
`
`hand, objects in the hand, gestures, and facial expressions. Id. at 25:50–63. Facing
`
`
`
`22
`
`IPR2021-00923
`Apple EX1003 Page 22
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00923
`U.S. Patent No. 8,194,924
`one or more of the cameras away from the user, they “can also be used to see gestures
`
`of others.” Id. at 26:25.
`
`C. Opinions Related to Mann
`
`i. Overview of Mann (Ex. 1004)
`
`35. Mann’s invention is directed to a hand-held recording system that
`
`captures natural, yet high-quality conversations between its user and another
`
`conversation participant. Mann at 2-3. Mann describes several applications for the
`
`recording system. Id. at 8-9 (discussing benefits to personal safety), 12 (discussing
`
`utility for
`
`investigative
`
`journalism), 16 (discussing
`
`the need for mutual
`
`accountability between customers and retailers).
`
`36. Mann contemplates several configurations of the hand-held system,
`
`including a wristwatch that houses the entirety of the recording system. Id. at 14.
`
`Wristwatch 300 houses cameras 310 and 350, a viewfinder 320, and a “body worn
`
`pack” with battery, computer, and communication system connected by cabling 360.
`
`Id. at 12-13. The wristwatch configuration is illustrated in Fig. 3 below:
`
`
`
`23
`
`IPR2021-00923
`Apple EX1003 Page 23
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00923
`U.S. Patent No. 8,194,924
`
`
`
`Id. at Fig. 3 (annotated to depict hardware elements). Camera 350 is directed toward
`
`the wristwatch wearer, while camera 310 is directed toward another subject. Id. at
`
`13. The viewfinder helps a wristwatch wearer aim camera 310. Id. This ensures the
`
`user creates a quality recording by ensuring the subject recorded remains centered
`
`in the video recording. Id. at 2. Mann also explains “the cabling 360 may be
`
`eliminated, so that the unit would be [] entirely self-contained” within the wristwatch
`
`itself. Id. at 14. Users control Mann’s wristwatch by interacting with a clock face
`
`
`
`24
`
`IPR2021-00923
`Apple EX1003 Page 24
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00923
`U.S. Patent No. 8,194,924
`superimposed on the wristwatch display’s touch-based interface. Id. at 14-15. The
`
`watch interface is depicted in Fig. 4:
`
`
`
`Id. at Fig. 4. Using the interactive watch face above, users can enter information like
`
`letters, symbols, and numbers using finger strokes in vector directions such as from
`
`top to bottom, or “downwards.” Id. at 15. These user instructions control the
`
`wristwatch, such as starting or stopping specific operations:
`
`[T]he numbers may be assigned a secondary meaning (e.g., select “0”
`to stop recording, “4” to kill all processes and halt the processor, “7” to
`wake up the system from sleep mode, etc.”
`
`
`
`25
`
`IPR2021-00923
`Apple EX1003 Page 25
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00923
`U.S. Patent No. 8,194,924
`Id. at 14. A PHOSITA would have recognized these programmable, computer-based
`
`operations of the wristwatch with its multi-camera configurability and user
`
`command inception would easily accommodate other, additional commands. For
`
`example, just as a user can stroke a finger upwards to “0” on the clockface to “stop
`
`recording,” a PHOSITA would recognize the computer could be programmed to
`
`recognize additional useful commands such as a finger stroke downwards to “6” to
`
`start recording a conversation. A PH
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
